On 05/04/2011 02:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 5/4/2011 2:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> I should also expand that this entire situation started with Crocker >> insisting that we must "choose" between between i= and d= >> as The Output. It was a false dilemma then, and it remains >> a false dilemma. And as with all false dilemmas it only causes >> heat instead of light. >> > > Right. It was all me. Another ad hominem. Nice. >
History is a personal attack? Who knew? > But then I suppose the question is why you "should" have included that > explansion. > > Anyhow, its bad there wasn't any working group consensus on the changes. I > guess that means that the published, normative Update RFC was a violation of > IETF principles and process. > One of the principles of DS is to remove things which aren't implemented or serve no purpose. I think it's quite fitting to ask that DS remove something that was added after the fact in an errata update and has proved to be problematic. Does the implementation report say who has implemented this MUST? If not, why not? Could it be that it's untestable? Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html